About as impartial as a South African referee
March 26th, 2004 at 2:28 pm by David FarrarFinal proof that Jonathan Hunt is the most partial and biased Speaker in living memory was delivered yesterday.
Readers will recall that when Harry Duynhoven triggered the Electoral Act by applying for Dutch citizenship, the Speaker refused for several weeks to give any opinion at all on whether Harry’s seat was vacant. He had been formally advised of Harry’s actions, yet said he could give no opinion at all, and that he would also ask the Privileges Committee for their opinion. This of course just by coincidence allowed the Government to avoid a by-election by changing the law in the interim.
Then you contrast that with yesterday in the House, where to my amazement the Speaker, despite no request to do so from a single MP, and despite not having even read the judgement or having received a notice from the Court, got up and declared that in his opinion Nick Smith’s contempt conviction does not create a vacancy. And this comes just hours after Helen Clark declared that she does not want a by-election and thinks one is not necessary.
So in the former situation, where an MP’s membership of the House was in question, the Speaker refused to give any opinion despite numerous requests to do so, yet in this case (which is far far more complex than the Harry case, with law professors quite divided on the correct interpretation) the Speaker rushes to give an opinion before he has even been asked.
One has to ask if there is any possible rational explanation for the inconsistency, except pre-planned and deliberate collaboration with the Government.
It is a tragedy that someone who has been an MP for so long, and started off as one of the best Speakers in a generation, has descended to a level where he has abandoned any pretence at independence and actively colludes with the Government to help them out.
Harsh words, but nothing else can explain this behaviour.
No tag for this post.
March 26th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
Hunt hadn’t even seen the judgement? David, you must be f-ing joking…
Vote:March 27th, 2004 at 11:06 pm
Law professors can disagree on just about anything, but this situation is straightforward.
Nick Smith was not convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of two years imprisonment or more. Therefore his seat is not vacant.
Only the verdict matters, not the reasoning or any other part of the judgment. It would have been quite wrong for Hunt to think that anything in the body of the judgment might be relevant to his ruling.
Also, it’s a bit of a stretch to claim pro-Labour bias based on a ruling that a National MP does not lose his seat.
I agree about the Duynhoven business though.
Vote:March 28th, 2004 at 12:04 am
I agree that the correct decision is that Nick Smith does not lose his seat. That has been my opinion for several weeks.
Likewise it was always clear to be that Harry D’s action had vacated his seat under then then law.
The total difference in approach by the Speaker can only have one rational reason
Vote:March 28th, 2004 at 8:52 am
Nigel –
I will bow to your superior legal knowledge, but didn’t the High Court convict Smith of an offence with no maximum or minimum penalty? From the peanut gallery, I wonder what Hunt knows that the rest of us don’t in assuming that the court won’t decide to make an example of Smith.
Vote:March 29th, 2004 at 9:59 am
DPF – I think your comments are quite hurtful. With the introduction of neutral referees some of the top South African referees are rightly regarded as some of the best in the world. With Paddy unable to do AB tests and the Australian referees struggling that leaves the Yarpies or (please don’t) Northern Hemispere referees.
Vote:March 29th, 2004 at 10:03 am
David,
Is your one rational reason that Jonathan Hunt doesn’t want to see an MP lose his seat, regardless of which party that MP is from?
Vote:March 29th, 2004 at 10:19 am
Nigel – Even if that is true, colluding with the Government so they can pass a law is not the way to do it.
Hunt has now been formally wirtten to, so it will be interesting to see what he does. On the basis of his precedent with HD, he should refer it to the Privileges Committee. However it is very clear, such a move will lead to a resignation and by-election which Clark is 100% against.
I predict he will not refer it, and make a definitive ruling tomorrow. That is also, IMO, what he should have done with HD – made an immediate ruling based on advice from Clerk and Solictor-General that HD had vacated his seat.
Vote:March 29th, 2004 at 11:02 am
Shouldn’t Hunt be saying nothing until Smith is actually sentenced on Friday – which, surely, has some small bearing on the matter? The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that every time Hunt opens his mouth he is placing de facto pressure on the Court to hand down a sentence that does not place Smith in jeopardy.
Vote: